Is there a right of private interpretation of scripture?

That became obvious If your mind is already made up and your thinking limited to what you already think you know then why do you waste your time listening to anyone? I wished that I would have known about your attitude earlier then I would have not wasted so much time with you in fruitless discussion and giving you references to read.

 

I explained myself quite clearly. Concerning manuscript evidence I am sure I can present my arguments quite clearly, but not here. This is not the forum for it. I simply state that I favor the TR rather than the Critical Text and leave it at that. That is not being close minded; it is a position that I have already studied out thoroughly and come to a position through much study and prayer. But that subject is derailing this thread and has nothing to do with the OP. Discuss it in the Versions Forum, and don't make false accusations. Because I have studied an issue out and come to a conclusion based on knowledgeable facts does warrant a bad attitude on your part.

Secondly, as I have already stated (and more than once), this has nothing to do with MSS evidence, or inspiration. Verse numbering is not inspired either, neither paragraph divisions, not even the vowel pointing of the OT. The subscripts were added later on, but that doesn't mean they are wrong. They are not inspired, but neither is my concordance inspired. I am not afraid to use either. If you so desire you can purchase a Bible without any additions to the text whatsoever (no concordance, no cross-references, nothing) but the text of your preferred version, and read it and it alone. But not everyone desires to do that. Unless you have valid proof that the information given in the subscripts are wrong, I will continue to believe that the information is correct.

Thirdly, an argument from silence is no argument at all. Your argument has been that they are not in the oldest MSS. This proves nothing at all. We are not speaking of inspiration or MSS evidence. We are looking at subscripts not the text of the Word of God itself. So it doesn't matter if they were in the earliest MSS. The fact of the matter is that at the end of the book of Philemon we have a subscript that states Onesimus was the amanuensis that wrote it on behalf of Paul. Unless you have direct proof that he did not, you don't have any reason to dispute it. One cannot present an argument from silence. This is not a MSS issue. If it is in the TR, it is there for a reason. Inspired or not, there must be some truth to it. If it is not true then prove that it is not true. One cannot just say: "It is not inspired and therefore it is not true." Will you therefore throw out all the literature (commentaries included) in your house because they are not inspired? You can't even trust a dictionary any more because it is not inspired? Where is common sense now? This has nothing to do with inspiration; it has to do with history, culture, society, and the proof of that is in the TR manuscripts.
The absence of them in other MSS is not an issue.

 

To name me as liar due to your ignroance does not make one look like he has studied but rather arrogant.

I see no evidence of that in that you asked about education and literacy. That is an issue that is studied before one graduates from high school in world history and other classes.

When the TR has added onto the text in Pilemon 25 it is an important issue. It says that you are willing to trust additions even though there are times when they have been proven wrong and proven to be an's interpretation.

While I was discussing ther text I was loking at two Greek texts. Until you study and read the books I suggested it is likely you will see anything else other than what you already are convinced of. Unless I study what diamoinds are I will never know what one really looks like. I Can be easily fooled.

That may or may not be true. But if a manuscript is the result of copying another text and additions are made that does say something. It seems that you are unaware of that.

Do youi prwach the same sermone which were preacheed 200 years ago? If oyu were to taker a lok at some of thsoe Baptist seermons you would be shcoked. Their view of the Holy Spirit was quite similar to the pentecostasl of today.

 

Because it was immaculately concieved. And there are no errors what so ever in it. And it has been handed down generation to generation exactly as the last copy of it is and it was found with the Holy Grail and is perfect in every way. Men wrote the other texts. God himself transcribed each copy of the TR. Common Zenas don't you know that?????????

 

Nope! That is what the versions forum is for. Stop derailing the thread or it will have to be shut down. I have given that warning already.

 

Your bitterness and arrogance is astounding. Don't you have better things to do. If you can't follow the rules, then don't post.

 

I'm sorry DHK. I'm not bitter and not being arrogant. I am being sarcastic and humorous. But I actually do find humour with regard to the Textus Recepticus and the large following of it with the absolute disregard for the critical text or any other text. But that's me. I'm sorry for offending you.

 

Who wrote the quote in post #104?

 

If you had read my previous posts, I said above that I came to my conclusions with much study and prayer. They are based on careful study, not the blind following of a certain crowd. Thus the offensive remarks were unwarranted. At any rate, with you, Zenas, or GB, a debate about textual criticism is not for this forum, it is for the versions forum. I hate repeating myself so many times. I think I am going to find myself deleting posts. Can we keep to the OP please, or at least the previous discussion.

Without MSS discussion what historical evidence is there that Onesimus was not the amanuensis of Paul. If one cannot produce any, then I would assume that he was. There are plenty of historical sources to use. To say that other MSS don't have it is sheer "stupidity," for lack of a better word. It is an argument from silence. If Onesimus did not write the book, then who did? Find that out. Who is not only the author, but the person that actually penned the book. If you do a study on the book, you will find that many believe that Paul's eyes were so weak by this time that it was difficult for him to see. Thus the expression: "see how large a letter I have written you." The epistle itself is one of the shortest in the Bible. Here is what Jamieson, Faucett and Brown say:

It seems quite clear what the passage means, and why Onesimus would have written it for him.

 

It doesn't matter if you started the thread.

[SIZE=-1]9. Post in the right forum. Keep posts on-topic, relative to the forum it's posted in.

Look at the title of this Forum:

[/SIZE]General Baptist Discussions Baptist topics that don't fit in the forums below

There is a forum for textual criticism, for the discussion of MSS, and it isn't here.
[SIZE=-1]

[/SIZE]

 

How would you call the following post #74 by you less than arrogant?

Why would you assume that the masses of people (of whatever nation you are speaking of) cannot read. This is a perpetuated lie that is unsubstantiated.

Does it mean that if you are ignorant and before you ask enough questions and study the subject thoroughly then the person you disagree with at the moment is a liar?

 

No, I am tired of people repeating the Catholic revisionist history, their take on history, their lie to us, that it didn't make any difference whether or not they burned Tyndale's Bible, "because all the people are illiterate anyway."
The statement is a logical fallacy.
It is an over exaggerated generalization.
It is well known by a study of history that the Bible was taught, preached, and studied, as the common person went from place to place preaching and teaching it to others. If this were not possible how would the Great Commission be carried out? Did Jesus command his disciples to do the impossible?

The RCC would have us believe that societies are illiterate when in reality the opposite is actually true. When I asked you for a specific example you failed to give one. Why? You over-generalized with a lame answer of saying OT and NT. That is hardly a time period, is it?

Declaring a people to be illiterate is not an excuse for anything--like keeping the Bible from them, or for any other act of good.

 

What I mentioned has absolutely nothing with the lies you claim. Your ignorance of the subject is mixing it with RCC doctrine and completely away from the truth. Who cares what the RCC teaches when it comes to truth. Scripture is the true and it is the standard not a rebellion against something else. It would help if you read a book on oral tradition so you would know the answer to your question.

Do you not know when writing began and when the NT ended? Is that not a time period in history.

When did I ever say it was? Quit confusing RCC claims with the truth. If you did not spend so much time in RCC rebellion perhaps you might be able to study without confusing their doctrine with the truth.

Apparently you have not read your Bible well enought to know how the letters were conveyed to the congregation. Try reading James 1.

FYI I gave you the name of a book to read on education in Israel. Plus the fact is that you should have known such common knowledge before graduating from high school.

Your attitude reminds me of the time I worked in a business and a customer came to me and asked me some questions. So I suggested a product. I could see the mistrust all over his face when I told him that he had wrong information. He began to tell me how much he did not trust salesmen. So to convince him that I was right I told him to use the product and that if it did not work I would give him his money back. I knew I was right and he had wrong information. He came back a few days later and admitted he was wrong. The same thing happened to me when I studied under one of the best craftsmen in thew world. I thought I was quite skilled and i was compared ot my friends that is until I met the master I decied to stusy under. Essentially what I knew was nothing and was humbled. I learned that in my own litle world I may be great but compared to the truth I may be nothing.

 

GB,
I have no intention of replying to your post in any detail. The only reason I don't report your post is that I would get the complaint any way! :laugh:
You sound very bitter.
Perhaps you have gone into this attack mode because you realize that there is no way for you to demonstrate (without going into a MSS evidence argument) that Onesimus did not pen epistle to Philemon. It leaves you frustrated to lose an argument. I am sorry for that. But that is life. You win some; you lose some. You must move on.

As for this thread, you have done a great job in derailing. It must now be closed.